Public Bill Committee

[Mr. Clive Betts in the Chair]

Clive Betts: I welcome everyone to the Committee, and remind them to switch all mobile devices to silent mode. That helps us to concentrate on our important proceedings. There are no amendments to the Bill, so we shall simply debate the clauses stand part and the schedule, and how many debates hon. Members choose to have is a matter for them.
There is a money resolution in connection with the Bill, and copies are available in the Room. I have told the hon. Member for Cardiff, North that if the Committee wants a general debate on the Bills provisions and purpose, that is appropriate in the stand part debate on clause 1, which we shall move on to now.

Clause 1

Main interpretative provisions

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Julie Morgan: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Betts. I am pleased that so many distinguished Members who feel strongly about the issue are here today. I thank them for their attendance. The Bill covers England and Wales, and I am pleased that we have representatives here from England and Wales. The Bills purpose is to prevent children aged under 18 from using sunbeds. As you said, Mr. Betts, no amendments have been tabled, and we will find out whether we need a subsequent sitting as we progress today. I confirm that the money resolution attached to the Bill was passed by the Committee last night, and is available.
Clause 1 interprets the meaning of sunbed and sunbed business, and clause 2 is the crucial, main part of the business. I propose to speak briefly about clause 1, and then discuss the wider aspects in relation to clause 2.
Clause 1 sets out the meaning of sunbed and sunbed business, and those terms are used throughout the Bill. A sunbed is any electronic device that emits ultra-violet radiation for the purpose of tanning. A sunbed business offers sunbeds for use on business premisesplaces such as tanning salons, gyms and hotelsregardless of whether any payment is made. The definition of a sunbed business does not cover businesses that offer sunbeds for sale or for hire if the beds are to be used away from the premises from which they are sold or hired. That issue is addressed later in the Bill.

Mark Simmonds: I look forward to working under your guidance this afternoon, Mr. Betts. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cardiff, North on bringing her excellent private Members Bill to this stage.
I want to raise a procedural issue. As you rightly said, Mr. Betts, no amendments have been tabled to the Bill, and although the Opposition support it and want it to have an expeditious passage through the parliamentary process, I do not believe that there was adequate time to table amendments. I was informed on Friday morning that the Committee would sit at this time, and that amendments, probing or otherwise, had to be tabled by the close of business at 2 or 2.30 on Friday, which allowed wholly insufficient time. I wanted to table a series of probing amendments to elicit further information from the hon. Lady and the Minister. That will not be possible, and it is not acceptable parliamentary procedure. I shall have to find other mechanisms for raising issues, but I wonder whether you would comment, Mr. Betts, on the lack of time for tabling amendments, probing though they may have been.

Clive Betts: My understanding is that the proper amount of timethree sitting dayswas provided. I shall try to ensure that the hon. Gentleman has sufficient opportunity to raise any concerns during stand part debates.

Nigel Evans: May I, too, say what a delight it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Betts? I congratulate the hon. Member for Cardiff, North on introducing this private Members Bill. I have had a few of them in my time, and managed to get one on to the statute book. That was achieved quickly, because there was general support from both sides of the House, and I hope that that will be the case with this Bill. There are only a few weeks to go before the general election, and I hope that with the general support for the measure, the powers that be will ensure that it is expeditiously dealt with, and that it will be enacted in the name of the hon. Lady, to whom I pay tribute.
Members of the Committee will be able to tell from my appearance that I have never used a sunbed in my life. I am not therefore a huge expert on sunbeds, although I know about them from what I have read in newspapers and from what I have heard from people with whom I have spoken in the past. I believe that the legislation is absolutely necessary. The hon. Lady mentioned the sale of sunbeds. Despite the fact that the Bill does not cover their sale, I hope that their producers will give sufficient advice to the people who buy themI assume that parents and adults normally buy the bedson their use. Indeed, advice and guidance should recommend that, if the purchasers have children in their house, the sunbeds should not be used by anyone under the age of 18 in that non-commercial premises. The more information that we can give people about the harmful effects of sunbeds on youngsters, the better our younger generation will be protected.
I will do anything I can to help expedite the matter. Many members of the Committee have businesses in their constituencies that offer sunbed treatment and, if used properly, there is no case for concern. However, I hope that the Bill will be enacted so that we can better protect children in our constituencies and throughout the country. Moreover, I hope that the Bill will become the standard not only for this country, but for countries around the world.

Bruce George: I feel as though I should appeal for some protection on this side of the Committee, Mr. Betts, as I am rather outnumbered. I will make no comments on the monstrous regiment of womenthat would be totally unfair.
I completely support the Bill and am delighted that it has been introduced. It is about time. It has arrived at the fag endto use an unwise termof this Parliament, and I hope that it will be enacted. A few hon. Members stand outside what is a substantial consensus, but this is clearly not a partisan political issue. I therefore hope that, in the spirit of non-partisanship and the desire to compromise, and because the legislation is obviously much needed, there will be no difficulties. I also hope that those who are not part of the consensus will not try to prevent this vital piece of legislation from reaching the statute book. It may not appear to be one of the major legislative items of the past few years, but the chances of survival for perhaps 100 people will greatly increase as a result of the Bill. Even much of the industry is in favour of it, as are all parties and the Government, and the Opposition spokesman gave a clear indication of substantial support in a speech two weeks ago. There is also overwhelming public support, so if this important Bill is not on the statute book by the end of this Parliament, something is seriously wrong with the legislative process and there will and should be genuine concerns.

Peter Bottomley: I join the consensus and congratulate the hon. Member for Cardiff, North. It is important to use moderate language in the light of the impact assessment, for which I am grateful. The Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment has published its 13th report: The health effects and risks arising from exposure to ultraviolet radiation from artificial tanning devices. The report says that ultra-violet radiation is capable of producing skin cancer and recommends that use of sunbeds by people under the age of 18 should be prohibited. Presumably, such sunbeds would be in commercial use, and people who own them privately should try to abide by the same standards.
The World Health Organisation has raised sunbeds to the highest cancer-risk category, carcinogenic to humans, moving it up from probably carcinogenic. It is important to say these things to explain why this kind of intervention is worth while. According to the impact assessment, 6 per cent. of people in England aged 11 to 17 have used a sunbed. I do not condemn them for that, but it is clearly better if they do not.
Sunbeds are not the only way in which young people can be exposed to danger of scorching or burning their skin. Ordinary exposure to natural radiation is also a worry. I commend those parents who take more care than I did to ensure that their children are protected from ultra-violent radiation by the relevant creams and the like. They do not always send their children out in the midday sun.

Gillian Merron: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Betts, particularly as this is such an important and well received Bill, not just in the House but also outside.
I would like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North, who has a formidable team behind her. It is formidable in the nicest way and always has been. I know how much the hon. Lady appreciatesas I dothe support that she has had. We also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East for championing the cause.
I have just a few comments to make. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley made an important point about information, which is dealt with later in the Bill. However, my view is that the Bill will do much more: people will have a greater understanding of the use of sunbeds in the home and of sun damage in generalnot just to younger people but to over-18s. It will produce an awareness that we have not seen before. In that respect, the practical effect of the Bill will go way beyond its provisions.
I assure the Committee and you, Mr. Betts, that the Government will do everything we can to expedite the Bills passage. I ask Opposition Members to do the same. We can all assist in that, in this House and the other place. It is still possible, and I hope that we can manage it.
I have come to the Committee from a visit to Clatterbridge near Liverpool, which is a centre of excellence in cancer. I told staff that I had to get the train to get back for this Committee, and they were delighted that we were discussing in Parliament today a Bill that, as hon. Members have said, will save lives and protect people from damage. Those working on the excellent services I saw in Clatterbridge told me that prevention must be the start, not just something we think about at another time.
The Government support clause 1. It is important to have certainty about the meaning of terms, as they set out the scope of the main offence. I also assure the Committee that this is the first legislative opportunity to bring this on to the statute books since the evidence was gathered. The evidence is not just medical; it is the fact that the voluntary code has not worked. I am sure all hon. Members would expect us to have exhausted all other avenues before resorting to legislation. I hope that we will have a useful discussion. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Worthing, West for the manner in which he welcomed the Bill and for mentioning all the evidence, which I am sure we will discuss later.
It is a pleasure to be here, Mr. Betts. I look forward to our expediting this part of the Bill process.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Duty to prevent sunbed use by children

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Julie Morgan: This is the main clause. It states that businesses that offer sunbeds for use on their premises would have to ensure that no one under 18 uses a sunbed or is offered the use of one. Failure to carry out that duty would be a criminal offence. An offence would still be committed if an offer was made to an 18-year-old, even if it was not taken up because the person changed their mind. The clause is crucial.
Let me mention the evidence and say why we are discussing the Bill. The hon. Member for Worthing, West has already mentioned some of the medical background. There is clear evidence of a link between sunbed use and an increased risk of developing skin cancer that is widely accepted. The International Agency for Research on Cancer has upgraded its assessment of sunbeds to its highest level of cancer risk following the publication of a comprehensive meta-analysis in The Lancet Oncology that concluded:
The risk of skin melanoma is increased by 75% when use of tanning devices starts before 30 years of age.
That is a crucial comment. It means that sunbeds are now in the same risk category as tobacco.
The scientific evidence is clear: young skin is more vulnerable to harm from ultra-violet radiation. Restricting under-18s from using sunbeds is proportionate, based first on the science evidence and, secondly, on practical considerations. Under-18s are not allowed to buy alcohol or cigarettes, so the Bill would bring the age at which people are able to use commercial sunbeds in line with other age restrictions across the UK. I believe this to be practicable and workable, and it will ensure clarity of messages. That is the medical reason for the Bill.
The clause states that under-18s should not have access to a restricted zone, which is defined in the clause. If an under-18 went into a private area with an over-18, it would not be possible to know which person had used the sunbed. If a parent is accompanied by a child, the parent would be expected to make alternative arrangements for the child to be cared for and not to let the child be exposed potentially to UV radiation. That is the reason for restricting access to a specific area.
If a sunbed is in a room with no private area around the sunbed, which seems unlikely, the whole room would be a restricted area. In such circumstances, the owners would naturally be expected to put a screen around the sunbed. The purpose of this provision is to cut down the opportunity for under-18s to use sunbeds. There was some debate on Second Reading about that matter.
The definition of a restricted zone was raised by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). I reiterate that it would be highly unusual for there to be no private space close to a sunbed. In practice, that would mean that a sunbed user would have to get undressed in a room with no private space or dressing area. In the unlikely event that such premises existCommittee members may know of such premisesit would be quick, easy and cheap to rectify the situation. A sunbed operator could create a private space by enclosing an area: that could be done with a simple screen or even a curtain. Alternatively, they would need to ensure that under-18s did not enter the restricted zone. It is important that we cover those issues, because there was concern about them on Second Reading. The purpose of this sensible, practical proposal is to try to stop under-18s getting access to sunbeds.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned on Second Reading the issue of the defence that could be used by a sunbed operator. He was concerned that a sunbed operator could be charged with an offence even if they had taken all reasonable precautions to stop an under-18 using a sunbed. I sought clarification from legal advisers on that point, as clearly we would not want operators to be charged if they had taken such precautions; that would be grossly unfair. I know that the issue caused hon. Members concern on Second Reading. I have been reassured that, in practice, no operator would be charged if they had taken reasonable precautions to stop under-18s using sunbeds, as they would have a suitable defence. The Ministry of Justice recommended that the legislation be drafted in the way that it has been, but operators will have a defence against a charge if they took steps to stop under-18s using sunbeds. I am reassured on that point, and I hope that other hon. Members will be, too.
We know from research commissioned by Cancer Research UK in 2008-09 that in England, more than 250,000 childrenthat is 6 per cent. overallhave used sunbeds. I am sure that all members of the Committee will agree that that is a huge number of children who have been exposed to the danger that we are talking about. There are hot spots in England: sunbed use among 11 to 17-year-olds in Liverpool was 20 per cent., and worryingly, among 15 to 17-year-old girls in Liverpool and Sunderland it was 50 per cent. When I visited Liverpool recently, I was struck by the number of sunbed salons that I saw when walking around the city, so there are areas of the country where the issue is particularly acute.
The evidence demonstrates that young people are using sunbeds across the country, and there is evidence that this law is needed. Adults can make their own informed choices, but children are often enticed by cheap prices. At 25p a minute, we are dealing with pocket-money prices. The myth that a tan will protect them before they go out in the sun, or the idea that having a tan makes them look somehow better or healthier, is often strong in young peoples minds.
That point was made forcibly by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East, who, as the Minister said, has fought for such legislation for many years. My hon. Friend said that young people in her constituency perceive getting a tan as their little bit of glamour. Somehow, we have to move away from that perception. We need a lot more than legislationwe need to work very hard to change the perception. However, if we passed this law, we would be well on the way.
We in England and Wales are not alone in taking action on sunbeds. Specific legislation on sunbed use exists in Belgium, Finland, France, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Sweden.

Siân James: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her words so far. She is making a point about legislation in other European countries. We know that in European countries that have introduced such legislation, such as in France, it has made a difference. It has reduced not only under-18s access to sunbeds, but the number of melanomas and the number of young people suffering from skin cancer. That point was raised on Second Reading, and it is worth reiterating it now. The measure can make a difference. Legislation is a good thing, and it will help on this matter.

Julie Morgan: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. She certainly makes a powerful point about the success of similar legislation, particularly in France. The Irish Government have said that they want to introduce legislation on the issue, and I think that they are consulting on that at the moment. In Scotland, as we know, action has already been taken to prohibit sunbed use among under-18s and the unsupervised use of sunbeds, and there is also a duty to display information. That legislation was implemented on 1 December 2009. To sum up on clause 2, this is a very important bit of legislation that is urgently needed to protect our young people.

Mark Simmonds: It was remiss of me, in my remarks on clause 1, not to mention the hon. Member for Swansea, East; I apologise for that, given her dedication and diligence in keeping the issue right at the forefront in Parliament, although, sadly, she did not succeed in getting a Bill on to the statute book. I know that she is extremely supportive of the hon. Member for Cardiff, North, who has just spoken very eloquently about the kernel of the Bill, clause 2. I do not wish to repeat either what was said on Second Reading, or what other hon. Members have said. For me the clinical evidence is clear and supported by the EU scientific committee which recommended a ban on sunbed use by those under the age of 18 and WHO, which upgraded the link in relation to exposure to UV and skin cancer and other skin ailments.
I do not think there is a serious debate to be had about the clinical evidence in terms of the relationship between young people being exposed to ultra-violet and normal sunlight without sufficient protection and rates of melanoma and other skin diseases. There is a debate to be had about whether 18 is the right age, but I understand why the hon. Lady has opted for 18. There are also significant numbers of young people who are exposing themselves through sunbeds, which I do not think they should be doing, so I think the Bill is absolutely right.
Like the Minister, I have been to Clatterbridge, although I have not been there today. I was very struck by the excellence of the work being done there; it is at the forefront and the cutting edge of cancer treatment. The Minister was right that prevention and providing the relevant information to enable people to make informed lifestyle choices are critical if we are to reduce the rates of cancer in this country and improve our current poor performance on five-year cancer survival rates.
This is the kernel clause of the Bill and there are three specific generic issues that I should like to raise with your permission, Mr. Betts. They need to be considered and should perhaps be brought into the Bill or discussed in relation to the subsequent regulations. The first is one of the points that I made on Second Reading and concerns the equipment and the strength of the UV tubes that are used in some sunbeds. As the Minister and her officials will be aware, in 2007 the Government signed up to an EU directive on the erythemal weighted irradiance level of tubes within sunbeds. This has not been implemented in the UK. It has been implemented in other countries in Europe. The Government are supposed to be timetabling the implementation of this directive, but they have not yet done so. Why are the Government not prepared to add this to the Bill, as the Sunbed Association recommends, and when will this directive be implemented?
This is not just about making sure that people under the age of 18 are not exposed to UV, but that those who are over the age of 18 who make a positive decision to go on a sunbed do so knowing that the sunbeds they are using are safe and regulated properly, which is not always the case. The second issue I should like to have clarified relates to the unmanned nature of some salons. There is some concern among those who are particularly interested, as all hon. Members here today are, but also some of the charitable and voluntary groups, which lobby so effectively in this area, that the Bill does not go far enough. It perhaps does not go far enough to ensure that there are qualified individuals who can inform those coming into the salons about the potential dangers, particularly of the overuse of sunbeds, as well as to ensure that the people who are excluded under the Bill do not use sunbeds. What is the logic for excluding that from the Bill at the moment?
The third issue on which I seek clarification is that in the impact assessment there seemed to be some confusion and duplication about who would be responsible for monitoring this Bill. Will it be the Department of Health or will it be the Health Protection Agency? In my view it needs to be one or the other, not both. There is already significant duplication within the NHS and one body needs to take responsibility for the monitoring of the enforcement of this Bill to ensure that it delivers what we all want to see.
I should like to go a little bit further than the hon. Member for Cardiff, North and ask about one aspect of the clause. Subsection (5) relates to the room in the relevant premises. There are occasions when a sunbed is in the same room as gymnasium equipment for example. It is clearly preferable, but it will not always be possible to screen off the sunbed. Does the Bill really say that if somebody is in that room using the gym equipment, the owner could be prosecuted even though that individual had gone nowhere near the sunbed? I am particularly concerned about that in relation to the way in which an enforcement officer discovers that a salon allows people under the age of 18 to use sunbeds. The enforcement is reactive rather than proactive, because someone has to tell an enforcement officer that a salon is breaking the law. I understand why the hon. Lady and the Minister have come to that conclusion. It is presumably a function of the cost, and it is particularly important to keep costs to a minimum in the current macro-economic climate. Whoever wins the next election, things will get worse regarding the constraints on public expenditure, but it is important to clarify as far as possible in Committee exactly what the hon. Lady and the Minister and her officials envisage for the enforcement of that inevitably grey area.

Bruce George: The issues remain. We all have some concerns, which I trust will be addressed as the Bill passes through the Commons and the Lords and back to the Commons. Nevertheless, the Bill is well drafted. I will not insult its parents by being critical, or by suggesting that they simply took a document, because they are too judicious and competent to have done that. I cannot recall all the characters, but I remember the story of a President of the United States making a speech and somebody in the audience shouting, Author, author, when he sat down. I hope that those who had a hand in drafting the Bill are identified not for any reasons of admonition, but because the legislation is well drafted.
I shall not cause controversy by identifying anybody, but on Second Reading a number of criticisms were made. Although I thought that most of them were nonsense on stilts, they need to be addressed. One was: why should we busy-bodies interfere in the rights of parents? When it comes to people under the age of 18, it should be the parents who instil sufficient knowledge and awareness in their offspring to encourage them to desist from attending such institutions and running the risk of cancer. I agree with the general point that it should be parents who instil those values, but we all know that not all parents are as aware or as concerned as the ideal parent, parents or relatives. Many young people do not have that set of wise advice.
I received a letter from a distinguished dermatology professional who has been very much involved in the campaign outside Parliament. He told me that he could not control his kids. One of them worked in a salon and he did not know. She was clearly under age and she used the devices. Even a good parentI do not speak as a parentwould not in this day and age have such control over their offspring as to ensure that they kept out of harms way by not going on a sunbed under age. There are some things the state has no right to do, but over the centuries, especially in the last century, Parliament has been prepared to interfere in some areas of private existence. If not a classic case, this is a substantial case in support of the state, if it has the evidence, doing that. Despite what we heard two weeks ago, there is overwhelming evidence of a clear link between sun-tanning, sun and the incidence of cancer. Not everything has been discovered, but there is more than enough evidence to convince any reasonable person, and even some unreasonable people, of the case for 18 as a limit. The case for the link between the two, as I mentioned earlier, is sufficiently overwhelming as to underpin any effort by hon. Members, the Executive and Parliament as a whole to step in and say that there must be a limit of 18.

Siân James: One of the questions about the Bill that has come up on several occasions is what is happening in America. Apparently some states have a complete ban, and others have introduced parental consent, whereby the parent gives consent for their child to use the sunbed or accompanies their under-18 child to the sunbed salon.
The interesting thing about the research that has been undertaken in America is that the process is not working. I am not surprised by that. In three of the states where research was undertaken, 11 per cent. of salons were still allowing access to young people who did not have anybody with them or any form of parental consent. Seventy-seven per cent. were getting away with it in Wisconsin, and 80 per cent. in Illinois. States such as Virginia and Washington are introducing legislation to ban the use of sunbeds by young people under the age of 18 because parental consent does not work.
As my right hon. Friend said, we need a concentrated, co-ordinated approach. Parents do their best and try to explain the dangers to their children, but young people want to experiment. What we are seeing in America is that parental consent is important, but it does not work.

Clive Betts: For future reference, hon. Members should keep interventions brief. If they want to make a speech, I am sure that they will be able to catch my eye.

Bruce George: I pay tribute to one of the most significant peopleperhaps the most significant personinvolved in this legislation. There has been good co-operation with our hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North to ensure that the Bill gets through as a result of luck in the raffle, which I said two weeks ago I never succeeded in defeating.
To cite the US is a waste of time. There are 50 states, and they are all different. I would have thought that Wisconsin, with its German traditionsI am not being disparaging in any waywould have been tough, whereas some states that one would have thought would not be tough are quite strong.
The evidence is there. I spent a couple of hours looking at different journals and counting the organisationsnot just strong non-governmental organisations but international organisations and Governmentsthat saw the link and produced valid reports. Truly, there cannot be anyone who is not prepared to accept that the state has a right to indicate 18 as the legitimate age for sun-tanning treatment, and that it is important for the state to lay down standards for how regulation is to be implemented. Local authorities or national organisations must do their job properly. If they just make a perfunctory visit once a year, it will not be good enough. They must check, check and check. There are 8,000 salons around the country, and the research shows that they are largely concentrated in fairly poor areas, so it should not be too onerous for whichever Department or local authority body is responsible to go around and ensure that the standards laid down by the legislation are met.
I cannot imagine or calculate the costI am obliged to listen to what the Department saysbut even if there is a cost and even it is more expensive than anticipated or calculated, the health of the population aged under 35, especially those aged up to 18, is sufficiently important not simply to pass legislation but also to say that if that legislation costs, it costs. I hope that the costs will be under control, because, as the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness said, we live in difficult times and we cannot squander resources, but I do not want to argue over a relatively small sum of money if the legislation has beneficial consequences. Only recently has there been an awareness of the issues.
I chair the all-party group on skin. I do not think that I need to declare an interest, as I have derived no financial benefit. I have suffered from psoriasis since I was a student, and I think I have almost singlehandedly sustained the skin problem profession because none of the treatments have worked, but maybe I am a bit of an aberration. The all-party group produced a report, but frequent attempts to influence the Department simply to talk to us about it have not yet been successful. I hope that things will change.
Our report, entitled Skin cancerimproving prevention, treatment and care, was published in November 2008. Looking at the expertise of those involved in the report, we can see that they are not a few people with vested interests expressing prejudices, but distinguished people from the highest ranks of the dermatology profession. They are senior people from the British Association of Dermatologists, the Skin Care Campaign and the Primary Care Dermatology Society, principal lecturers in dermatological studies and consultant dermatologists in distinguished hospitals. That group, using all the expertise available, produced a report that made recommendations pretty close, if not identical, to those in this excellent legislation. It did not simply identify the figures, the incidents and the distinguished research undertaken, but put forward advice and recommendations that are largely what is in the Bill.
The case has been well made outside this place by distinguished people who are experts in their field, and everybody seems supportive. There is an opportunity for those who support the Bill, but have criticisms or issues that need to be clarified, to express their views, either now or at later stage, so that we can sustain our near unanimity to ensure that the Bill proceeds. Surely, we do not want a little coterie of individuals, who may have every right to do so, trying to mess things up at a later stage or people being lobbied strongly in this House or the House of Lords.
Even the respectable side of the sunbed business is supportive because the profession realises that the criticisms will not evaporatethey will be sustained. The number of people who stayed on last night at the end of proceedings, when they thought that someone would be difficult over the proposed legislation, was a clear example of overwhelming support. When I looked at the screen, I thought, I must have slept all the way through the night, because it is 4.30time to get in. A lot of people thought that someone would be difficult, not constructively critical, as I suspect the overwhelming majority are, but potentially hostile by raising issues that would have been superfluous.
I say no more at this stage, other than that there are many desirable things in the Bill. The research sustains all the arguments that have been proposed. The Health and Safety Executive got most of the recommendations right, and they are included in the legislation18 should be mandatory, the institutions should not be unstaffed, coin-operated sunbeds are not sufficient, there should be a mandatory point-of-sale information unit, all sunbed providers should be prevented from undertaking any positive health care advertising, and public bodies, such as local authorities, should be involved in the process.
Lastly, as an academic used to quoting eminent academic sources

Nigel Evans: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there should be sufficient encouragement for the owners of tanning salons to ensure that they have sufficient proof of age? We know that some people under the age of 18 may be attracted to use such machines and have been able to do so until now. It is quite difficult these days to work out whether young people aged 16 or 17 are under the age of 18. However, to take away that possibility, if people are in doubt and think that someone may be under 18, even though they look 25, they should show proof of age.

Bruce George: The hon. Gentleman has retained his youthful good looks, and I would have thought that he had a good degree of difficulty getting into Parliament when he first arrived. I have not had those difficulties. I am not a parent, but we all know of kids who are 14, 15 or 16 getting into licensed establishments. The staff or supervisors either do not care or are deceived. The hon. Gentlemans point is absolutely valid. There has to be proper supervision.
When we were conducting the study, I visited a number of establishments. Most of them appeared to be good, and they were good. Yes, they are supervised, but the supervision is done by someone who has a rota to undertake and complete. Yes, the signs are all around, assuming that people read them, but many do not. It could be a disaster if someone slips through the system, even though there is a reasonable degree of supervision. There are a number of issues that I would like to raise.
Before the hon. Gentleman interrupted me, I was saying that I had quoted all sorts of learned sources, but there is one that is not normally on my list. There was a wonderful launch of the campaign to secure support for the Billit was superb. I do not think people came to watch any of us, they came to watch Nicola Roberts, from a group I have seen, although I am too old for it. I am still in the Jerry Lee Lewis eraI havent quite matured, or immatured, beyond that point. Perhaps it is a bit naughty to quote a speaker from somebody elses meeting, but that young lady, Nicola Roberts of Girls Aloud, said:
Tanning is a subject that is very close to my heart. I was once in a place where I did feel the pressure to have a tan. Having a tan made me feel more attractive. It made me feel more accepted. And as a young girl I became very influenced by peers, by media, by everybody in society and that was just the way I felt. If I didnt have a tan, I didnt feel attractive. I didnt feel very good at all and its about teaching young men and young women that it is ok to be your own colour, you dont have to conform
to the norms. She added:
You dont have to be tangoed to be accepted! Its not the way its supposed to be.
I thought that was eloquently delivered, and it resonated when that young woman said how she feltI presume she meant at that time; she may or may not have been 18 years of age. She expressed a view that may not be one we experienced in our day, but one involving pressures from a very different cultural environment. There are pressures to look beautiful. If beauty means having darker skin, young people think It wont cost me much to get it. Some old people might say that in 25 or 30 years time I might have cancer, but theyll have cured it by then. Im not worriedits a long time ahead. My attention span is 25 hours, not 25 or 30 years. We can understand that pressure.
Young people may not thank us for spoiling their choice, but I hope that in time they will recognise that we are doing the right thing and that we have to protect people who might wish to be protected. I have cantered around the field. There are some more specific issues to consider. I hope that they can be ironed out in the next few weeks.

Gillian Merron: As we have heard, the clause gets to the heart of the issue and would allow us to be sure that people aged under 18 cannot use a sunbed at a sunbed business, except for medical reasons. The Government wholeheartedly support that provision.
As we have heard in Committee today and on other days in the House, sunbeds pose a great health risk. We know that they are being used by more young people than ever before, and despite the efforts of industry, voluntary regulation just is not working. A major contribution to tackling the rise in skin cancer and preventing a generation of young people from storing up damage for the future is indeed the restriction of access to sunbeds by those who are under 18. The clause does the job for us. It would place a legal duty on businesses to prevent sunbed use by children, backing that up with the creation of a new criminal offence that carried a fine of up to £20,000members of the Committee can see how serious we are about this.
Businesses that offer sunbeds for use on their premises would be under a duty to ensure that persons aged under 18 were not offered, did not use and did not access their sunbeds, and a duty to ensure that persons aged under 18 were not present in the restricted zone. Having a restricted zone makes the Bill workable in practice, as it would provide clarity about where offences were being committed, if they were being committed. The subsections of the clause make clear what would constitute a restricted zone.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North explained very well the situation if there were such premises as the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness describedI, too, am not aware of any; I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is. It is impossible to imagine circumstances in which a gym, as described, would have a sunbed in the corner and no private space in which to undress and dress. However, if that were the case, putting screens around the area is all that would be required, as my hon. Friend said. Therefore, the owner of such premises would be in compliance.
It is important for us to consider circumstances when the sunbed business has done all that it can to comply. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley mentioned young people looking older than their years If a young person came up with a good quality, fake identity card, which was checked by the business owner, it would be a reasonable defence that the owner had not contravened the law. We recognise that by accident and despite all best efforts, the odd person might slip through the net. The clause recognises those who take every reasonable step to comply and, as my hon. Friend said, such people can use it as a defence, if appropriate.
The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness asked where we would make reference to the supervision of premises. That will follow under regulations. If the Bill receives Royal Assent, we will move quickly to consult on the regulations, which are the right place to contain such referencesnot in the Billas how they are made to work is a matter of practicality. We shall return to that point under clause 4, where allowance is made for measures requiring supervision of the use of commercial sunbeds.
I have discussed the EU standard previously. It is the responsibility of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, so it is not appropriate for such a measure to be included in a public health Bill. As I said on Second Reading, I drew the concerns of the hon. Gentleman to the attention of the Business Secretary, a matter to which I shall return. The Committee might like to know that an enforcement regime is in place, about which the Department of Health is in discussion with BIS. Responsible operators would be expected to comply voluntarily with the standard in any case. Such practice already takes place and, although the concerns are real, unfortunately the Bill is not the right instrument to tackle them.
The hon. Gentleman talked about monitoring the ban. The Department is responsible for monitoring compliance with the ban, and it will work closely with other bodies. We shall also return to the matter when discussing clause 7 because action enforcement is the responsibility of local authorities. As we all realise, the lead time for the development of skin cancer is too long to make it feasible in all honesty to monitor compliance as we might usually do. However, I accept the need to ensure that the provisions of the Bill are enacted and that will be the responsibility of local authorities with which we shall work closely. I hope the Committee will see fit to accept the clause.

Julie Morgan: We have had an interesting and helpful debate. Important issues have been raised, most of which the Minister has covered. We shall be returning to several of them under other clauses. Enforcement is initially a matter for local authorities and it will be carried out via routine visits under health and safety legislation. Such matters will then be referred to the Department, so that it has an overall view.
My hon. Friend the Minister covered the EU regulations and the fact they are the responsibility of another Department. The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness also said that even if all salons adhered to the EU opinion on the strength of sunbed lamps, without the Bill many salons would still be able to allow children easy access to sunbeds and thus put their health at risk. Another important point was the recognition of the age of a young person. We will take that very seriously when we undertake the consultation process when drafting the regulations.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Exemption for medical treatment

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Julie Morgan: This is a short clause, which provides exemption for medical treatment for under-18s. It is a sensible clause and will make the Bill workable. There are clearly some instances where the use of a sunbed, under strict supervision, is recommended by a health professional to treat skin conditions such as psoriasis. Any treatment must be under the supervision of a doctor and must be in a healthcare establishment in the NHS or the private sector. COMARE, which has already been mentioned a few times, and WHO recommend that medical treatment should take place in medical settings under clinical supervision. The clause will ensure that there is no loophole by which young people can gain access to sunbeds under false pretences.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

Power to make further provision restricting use, sale or hire of sundbeds

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Julie Morgan: Again, this is an important clause because it deals with the regulations. The clause allows regulations to be made to support the aim of the legislation, which as we all know, is to prevent the use of sunbeds by under-18s. It allows secondary legislation, by Welsh Ministers in the Welsh Assembly and by Ministers in Westminster, in three areas: supervision, use of sunbeds by under-18s in domestic premises, and the sale and hire of sunbeds to persons under 18.
We know that some salons are unsupervised and we know from research by Cancer Research UK that 6 per cent. of 11 to 17-year-olds use sunbeds. As we have so many Welsh Members here today, I will give the figure for Wales, which is higher. Some 8 per cent. of children aged 11 to 17 have used a sunbed in Wales. In the 15 to 17-year-old group, 11 per cent. have used a sunbed. It is clear that younger children are using sunbeds in salons.
Supervision in salons is crucial, a point supported by WHO and COMARE. If a salon has no members of staff, there is no one in place to check age and if necessary to say no. As many of my colleagues are aware, the Welsh Assemblys Health, Wellbeing and Local Government Committee recently conducted an inquiry into the use and regulation of sunbeds. Not only did it recommend that under-18s should not be allowed to use sunbeds, but also that
facilities provide full-time supervision by well-trained staff.
It considered evidence from one sunbed operator who argued that they were able to identify the age of users remotely, via CCTV. We have already had a discussion about how difficult it is to tell the age of young people. The Committee considered that argument to be risible and that it was difficult enough to tell someones age, let alone if using CCTV. It is precisely for that reason that licensed premises often require identification evidence before serving alcohol and that issue has already been raised.
Should the Bill be enacted, I am pleased to confirm that the Welsh Minister for Health and Social Services, Edwina Hart, is committed to bringing forward regulations straight away to protect children in Wales. The Secretary of State for Health also confirmed his intentions at the Bills launch, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South referred. We received an enormous amount of support. He said that he would introduce regulations straight away to tackle unstaffed salons once the Bill is passed.
The Bill also ensures that, as part of the process of introducing regulations, a consultation must occur involving all interested parties. It is very important that that consultation take place. It is a sensible way forward and the owners of businesses should have the opportunity to make their views known. Ensuring that salons are supervised may mean that extra staff have to be taken on. Although that would provide job opportunities, there are also implications for the salons and they must have every opportunity to put their views forward.
Staff supervision is important and, should the Bill pass, regulations would be introduced, subject to consultation, to ensure that salons are supervised. The regulations might be seen as a ban on coin-operated or self-determined sunbeds. However, they will not create an explicit ban, and before they are introduced, there must be consultation with interested parties. However, they will drastically limit the use of coin-operated sunbeds.
The other power to make secondary legislation ensures that under-18s do not use or are not offered the use of a sunbed by people who carry on sunbed businesses from their homes, and prohibits or restricts the sale or hire of sunbeds to under-18s. Subsections (3) and (4) ensure that the consultation takes place.

Mark Simmonds: I thank the hon. Member for Cardiff, North for her introduction to this part of the Bill. I want to raise two or three points. She is absolutely right to emphasise the importance of consultation, particularly with those legitimate businesses that want to comply with the law and subsequent regulations to ensure that everything is done safely and appropriately, and that the Department understands the impact of subsequent regulations on the viability or otherwise of particular businesses. However, I want to press the matter a little further.
First, is the hon. Lady saying that it is certain that subsequent regulations will make unmanned sunbed salons illegal? If so, why is that not in the Bill, because that is the right thing to do? Secondly, what is the difference between unmanned and supervised? Supervised implies that the supervision could be external from the premises rather than internal, and I would like to know whether there is a nuance, or whether I am just being suspicious of the choice of words.
Another issue is the time scale of the subsequent regulations. If the Bill is enacted, as we all hope it is, it is unlikely that regulations would be introduced during the lifetime of this Parliament, so there would be a time gap. People under the age of 18 would be unable to hire a sunbed, but they could buy one for their own use. If that is the caseeveryone agrees that we should ban under-18s not only from using sunbeds in salons, but from buying them for their own usewhy is that not in the Bill? What is the importance and necessity of the consultation for those two narrow aspects?
It would be helpful to understand the Departments thinking on coin-operated sunbeds, and the hon. Lady was absolutely right to raise that. Is the intention to make that illegal under the regulations, or is it to consult the industry on the detail to ensure that in some circumstances that is still allowed? I would like to know under what circumstances coin-operated sunbeds will be allowed, because I believe that they are one of the main problems that need to be sorted out, not just for those under 18, but for those over 18.

Bruce George: My attitude to legislation is scarred by my long experience of the Private Security Industry Act 2001, which was diluted and not properly enforced. Best intentions may be undermined by an Administration with different perspectives from those of a previous Administration, or the earlier Administration may change. The words in the Bill cause me some concern. May make provision is too flexible. Will would be better, because may leaves a gap for someone who wishes to dilute the provision.
Subsection (1)(a) states that
the use of sunbeds to which the business relates is supervised in such manner as the regulations may require.
We do not know what the regulations are, but we all know, because we have all been members of Committees dealing with regulatory measures, that they often go through at a rate of knots, and that members of such Committees do not always want to be members. Can the Minister assure us, as far as she is able, that the impetus for the legislation, which has been some time in coming, will be sustained? Will principles be laid down for regulation and subsequent action by overstretched local authorities and Government, because many redundancies will result from people being turfed out of work? I hope it will be possible to stiffen what is contained in the Bill to ensure that enforcement will be serious and not perfunctory or zero.

Gillian Merron: The Government support the proposed regulation-making powers contained in clause 4. Regulations made under the clause will support the Governments position, which is that under-18s should be prevented from using or accessing sunbeds for cosmetic purposes. However, we acknowledge the impact on the sunbed industry, which is why mandatory consultation with interested parties is the right thing to do.
The regulations will require the supervised use of sunbeds and will prohibit or restrict the sale of sunbeds to under-18s. As I said earlier, regulations are right and proper, not least because of the amount of consultation on the practicalities of the Bill, and that is why regulations will be used to give effect to the Bill, as is normal. We intend to carry out the consultations as soon as possible after the Billas we hopecompletes all stages in the House. Importantly, as the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness inquired, we will also carry out a full impact assessment before making the regulations. I hope that the Committee will support the clause.

Mark Simmonds: Unusually, the Minister has not, I feel, given adequate responses to the points that I raised. Of course consultation is important. Of course it must be done with the relevant and legitimate businesses. I want to understand the difference between manned and supervised. That has not been explained. I want to understand whether it is the view of the Governmentit is clearly the view of the hon. Member for Cardiff, Norththat unmanned salons, and coin-operated salons, should be made illegal under the subsequent regulations. The Minister might say, That is part of the consultation process, in which case we can conclude only that it is not the intention of the Government under subsequent regulations to make those two particular aspects illegal. As I said earlier, if that is the case, it should be in the Bill and not left to subsequent regulations.

Gillian Merron: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I can reassure him that there will be a proper consultation. From the Government point of view, it would be wrong to say otherwise. On whether certain aspects will produce the result that the hon. Gentleman referred to, it is not for me to predict the outcome of a consultation. I, of course, will look at the results of the consultation.
On the question of the difference between unmanned and supervised, that will be set out in the regulations. They will spell out exactly what is meant by supervision. We could go further than just a coin-operated sunbed, which has a member of staff on the premises at all times. Whatever the result, we must have regulations that work. At this stage, I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman shouldhe said he was perhaps being

Mark Simmonds: Suspicious.

Gillian Merron: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I did not want to misrepresent him. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Worthing, West obviously thinks he is not a suspicious man by nature. We will specify in regulations what unsupervised and supervised mean. That is the right place to deal with that matter. The time scale for regulations is to be determined. I hope that that helps Committee members.

Julie Morgan: I thank hon. Members for their contributions.
I reiterate that there is a commitment from Ministers in the Welsh Assembly and in Westminster to advance the regulations as soon as possible if the Bill is passed.
The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness may be interested in what has happened in Scotland, where there is a definition of staff supervision. Coin-operated sunbeds can still be used, but they must be supervised. People can still pay for use in that way, but there must be supervision ongoing. There can still be coin-operated sunbeds, because that is just a method of payment, but supervision will be taking place. For me, the key issue is that there is supervision.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

Power to require information to be provided to sunbed users

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Julie Morgan: The clause gives the power to ensure that information is provided to sunbed users. It will be necessary for sunbed businesses to provide and display information about the health risks of using sunbeds. Regulations, if introduced, will also ban sunbed businesses from promoting the use of sunbeds as healthy. They should be prohibited from promoting unproven health benefits. The information that has already been mentioned in the debate is essential, not just for under-18s, but for people of all ages.
Sunbeds have been linked to various poor health conditions, including eye damage, photodermatosis, photosensitivity, premature skin ageing and skin cancer. People cannot always see straight away the damage that ultra-violet light does: the point has been made strongly that it builds up gradually and may be causing damage for years ahead. SunSmart, the UKs national skin cancer prevention programme, says that
short periods of intense, irregular UV exposure, like you get on a sunbed, are the fastest way to damage your skin.
That happens whether the user burns or not.
It is crucial that accurate health information is provided to users of a salon, so that adults can make informed choices about the risks to their health if they decide to use a sunbed. The Bill would introduce a measure to provide health information in sunbed salons, via regulations, which I strongly commend.
Promoting unsupported benefits of sunbeds is irresponsible when we know that they significantly increase the risk of malignant melanoma, the most dangerous form of skin cancer, as well as prematurely ageing the skin. By using sunbeds people run the risk of sunburn and damaged skin for the sake of little protection against future sun exposure. Sunbeds are a not a safe way of building up vitamin D levels, as is often claimed. Other Committee members may be aware that some tanning salons have advertised to customers by saying, Get your vitamin D here.
This is an important part of the Bill. Along with legislation, it is important that children and other members of the public are made aware of the risks associated with the use of sunbeds. The national skin cancer prevention campaign called SunSmart, which is funded by the Department of Health and run by Cancer Research UK, aims to do that. It produces information warning of the risks associated with sunbed use. Ensuring that clear, accurate health information is displayed is another critical way to increase public knowledge about the dangers of sunbeds and to dispel some of the inaccurate myths that suggest that sunbed use is a safer alternative to the sun.

Mark Simmonds: First, the hon. Lady is right. Information is critical and it is fundamentally important to enable it to be accessed and understood by those for whom it is intended.
Clause 5(1)(a) states:
to provide, in prescribed circumstances and in a prescribed manner, prescribed health information to persons who are using or may seek to use a sunbed.
Will the Minister say who will be doing the prescribing?
Secondly, in respect of subsections (2) and (3), I should like to understand how the health information will relate to the Advertising Standards Authority, which claims that it already has in place standards and regulations that would override any false information being disseminated to the public. The Committee may well be aware that when the issue was raised on Second Reading, the Advertising Standards Authority had written to all hon. Members. It stated in that letter that the advertising code already reflects the UK law that covers misleading or unfair advertising. Is it proposed that subsections (2) and (3) should override the law that already covers the Advertising Standards Authority? If not, how will the two be juxtaposed?

Peter Bottomley: May I follow my hon. Friend and say that I am glad we are now moving from proscription to prescription? I hope that the hon. Member for Cardiff, North and the Minister might be able to say that part of the reason for the regulations is that if people are advertising in a way that is likely to attract the attention and interest of people under the age of 18, it would be highly undesirable. The information that should be prescribed could be put forward either by the Government or a Government-recognised body. Alternatively, it could be put forward by recognised operators of sunbeds who can agree with the Government and the medical professions what would be sensible information to prescribe. It is perfectly reasonable for the advertising standards people to maintain, quite correctly, that they can prevent wrong advertising, but I am not sure that they can require that the right information is given. That is probably the gap that the Bill properly identifies.

Gillian Merron: All sunbed users need to be aware of the health risks, which means that those who are over 18 also need to be aware of them. It is right that we have regulations to ensure that accurate information is, in a positive sense, available to users, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Worthing, West. I certainly share the view already expressed that users should not be misled by information relating to the so-called health effects of using sunbeds. Regulations that will prevent non-prescribed information from being available to sunbed users are, indeed, necessary.
We will consult on that because, although we welcome the provisions, they will, nevertheless, impose certain additional regulatory burdens on sunbed businesses. There will be full consultation on the provisions with interested parties, including representatives of the industry and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. It is intended that those discussions will take place in the period between the legislation being passed, as we hope it will be, and its coming into force.
On the question of who prescribes, it will be a matter for the Secretary of State to prescribe in his regulations, obviously following the consultation. On the important matter of co-ordination with the Advertising Standards Authority, we in the Department of Health will have discussions with BIS and the ASA to ensure that there is no duplication. For the reasons outlined by the hon. Member for Worthing, West, we quite properly feel that this is about prescribing what should be provided, rather than what should not be provided. I hope the Committee will support the clause.

Julie Morgan: Again, important points have been raised. It is important to remember that the Advertising Standards Authority can only investigate complaints. Obviously, there have been some complaints, which it has investigated. It is crucial to have clear, accurate and consistent information throughout the country. I think the Minister has already said that the provision will be consulted on before it happens.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

Protective eyewear

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Betts. It might be acceptable to the Committee for the hon. Lady to move some of the clauses formally. If there are probing questions, she could then perhaps say a bit more if necessary.

Clive Betts: Of course, an hon. Member does not have to move a clause. I am effectively saying that there is a clause stand part debate. If no one speaks, I will move straight to the question, but it is up to individual Members to take their own position on that.

Julie Morgan: Clause 6 is another simple clause. Its purpose is to ensure that protective eyewear is worn by sunbed users. Any person who carries on a sunbed business must make protective eyewear available to the users and ensure that they wear it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

Enforcement by local authorities

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Julie Morgan: Clause 7 puts a duty on local authorities to enforce the Bill. It is important to say that the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, the Local Government Association and the Local Authorities Co-ordinators of Regulatory Services, part of the local government group, all support the Bill. The message that I have received from those organisations is that local enforcement officers on the ground would like to have additional powers to inspect sunbed salons to ensure that minimum standards are being met. They currently believe that their hands are often tied because of the lack of appropriate legislation. Those organisations all welcome the legislation.

Mark Simmonds: Clearly, enforcement will be critical if the Bill is going to be a success, and I am delighted that all the local authority organisations seem to be uniformly agreed on the importance of this aspect of the Bill. I have one question about the schedule that is attached to the clause. The schedule notes the ability of the relevant authorised officer to enter premises. What is the notice period for entering the premises? Is it 24 hours, as is the case for local authorities entering houses in multiple occupation? A recent pharmacy regulation also gave 24-hour notice for the relevant officers to enter pharmacies.
There are pros and cons in having a notice period. On the one hand, the owner of the salon will know that somebody is coming to inspect and they can put things right and make sure that nobody under 18 is in there. On the other hand, it needs to be clarified; otherwise it could be open to legal challenge, which may stop the enforcement officer being able to regulate appropriately in the first place. The proper enforcement of the regulation will be key to the Bills success, so it is important that we understand that key element.

Nia Griffith: Enforcement is extremely important and is vital to the success of any legislation. We are discussing a duty that will probably be undertaken by the environmental health departments of local authorities. In my local authority, that department is aptly called the public protection department, and it has done a good job recently by visiting local retailers and naming, shaming and punishing those that have been supplying alcohol to under-18s. It is crucial that we get the same sort of approach in relation to the Bill.
First and foremost, an information campaign must be aimed at young people and their parents to make sure that they are fully aware that a law is coming into force that will make it illegal for under-18s to use a sunbed in commercial premises. The message needs to go out loud and clear that we are banning them not because we are fuddy-duddies, but because there are genuine health reasons. The vast majority of young people will fully understand the problem when they are given those reasons and the facts and figures. We must accompany the legislation with a far-reaching and hard-hitting publicity campaign.
Enforcement largely depends on consensus among the general public. Therefore, if we think that something is amiss, we all have a duty to report. We need to make sure that people are aware of that, and of where they have to go and to whom they have to report. That way, we can suss out the sunbed premises owners and operators who are allowing under-18s to use their premises and take appropriate measures against them.
Thirdly, we need to have back-up for the local authorities. The LGA has made a clear point about the additional resources that it will need, and we passed the money resolution yesterday evening. We need to make sure that it has the necessary means properly to carry out and enforce the legislation. Without enforcement, it will be of little use.
We have to make absolutely certain that there is appropriate dialogue with the Local Government Association and the Welsh Local Government Association to ensure that we get all these points right and that we make this a highly workable and effective piece of legislation.

Bruce George: It is possible if one has not sought to take a serious view of this Bill to think that it is pretty manageable and pretty understandable. It is all about stopping those under 18 going into salons. But the more one reads about this area of policy, the more one realises how complicated it is. Therefore a public health officer who has not dealt with this issue before will not be able to meet the requirements of even a short Bill like this. I was wading through the documents and it is worse than doing O-level chemistry; not that I ever did. Oh I did, yes. I think I failed. The 13th report of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment is very complicated.
I should like some assurances. When one is dealing with enforcement, there will be a power to prosecute. I have mentioned the security industry authority. For a long time the guy who was responsible for enforcement saidI was at a conference where he said this that he did not believe in prosecution. There are some cases where a tap on the wrist or a fine will not be enough. There will be some cases where something stronger must be done. Enforcement should have a high set of sanctions. Enforcement by local authorities should involve those who have a competenceI am sure they doand the training.
What thought has been given in the Ministers Department to the standards that will be need to be attained by the officers who will look around and enforce? Is there any idea yet of training courses put on by different organisations? Is there any indication that those who are going to have this quite onerous responsibility have had the training before they can go out and enforce what they will be legally empowered to do? It might not look too complicated and it might look as though this is pretty simple, but I suspect that some elements of it will require something more. I am not suggesting a sub-specialism or that every local authority has to have somebody with a masters in this area of policy, but I just want to be certain that consideration is being given to ensure that those who do this job have the qualifications, the experience and the learning to do it.

Gillian Merron: For the Bill to be effective it has to be enforced properly. We believe that local authorities are well placed to authorise officers to enforce the provisions of the Bill in their area. My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli makes good points about the support for the Bill from young people themselves. She said that good quality enforcement is about good quality understanding and support from the public. I believe that the Bill will have that.
To answer the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness, no notice period is required. However, if entry is not given voluntarily, a justice of the peace warrant is needed. This is an on-notice application, although there are circumstances where notice of application for warrant is not given, in other words when it would defeat the very object of the Bill.
Perhaps I can reassure my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South. Standards will be set by local authorities and their representative bodies which we work very closely with. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North has done so too. However, if we get to that stage, the Department of Health plans to produce guidance to assist enforcement.
It is interesting to note that France has had a mandatory registration scheme since 1998, and that 80 per cent. compliance has been achieved. Given the combination of matters that will go on, and the awareness of the communities in which operators are based, we should be realistic about the challenge. We certainly do not expect a masters degree or a doctorate in order to ensure compliance.

Julie Morgan: I wish to add to what the Minister said and respond to the queries raised.
Entry to commercial premises is already included in health and safety legislation. The warrant allows entry at all reasonable times. It is up to the local authority to determine the most appropriate person and the best use of resources. It could be environmental health officers, as they already visit suntan premises for health and safety compliance checks. That position was suggested by the Local Government Association.
Enforcement officers are trained to apply a wide range of legal requirements. Evidence is generally provided by the Department with responsibility. Additional training will not be a major issue, but the Minister has already covered that point.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses8 and 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10

Regulations: general

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Julie Morgan: Clause 10 contains further provisions regarding the regulation-making powers. It was said on Second Reading that £20,000 was a stiff penalty. I reiterate that that is the maximum penalty. Often a lower amount will be charged, but I imagine that the £20,000 will act as a deterrent to those who might not adhere to the provisions.

Mark Simmonds: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for highlighting that point.
I wish to make two or three quick points on this clause. First, I presume that the maximum fine of £20,000 may be for repeat offenders rather than first-time offenders. Clarification would be useful. Secondly, the power to make the regulations is exercisable by statutory instrument. Will that be by affirmative or negative resolution procedure?
Thirdly, subsection (2) states:
Regulations under this Act may
make different provisions for different cases or different areas.
What on earth does that mean? It seems to include every possible option for future variance in the regulations that may apply. Some clarification on those points would be helpful.

Gillian Merron: We believe that the clause is necessary in order to prevent officers of a company from hiding behind their company so as to escape prosecution. The parliamentary procedure is set out in clause 11. I hope that that helps the Committee.

Mark Simmonds: While I am still on my feet, I wonder whether the Minister might find the inspiration to explain what subsection (2)(a) meansor will the hon. Member for Cardiff, North explain? Making different provisions for different cases or different areas seems a very loose catch-all provision.

Julie Morgan: I go back to the fine, the first point raised by the hon. Gentleman. The £20,000 maximum is a standard level for the magistrates court and can be found in similar legislation on health and safety and food safety. It will rarely be imposed, as a proportionate application is required.
The regulations are dealt with in clause 11, so perhaps we can look at that again when we reach that clause.

Siân James: I understand that in Scotland the maximum rate is £4,000, and I welcome the fact that the maximum, I presume, for repeat offending is £20,000, because that will truly be a deterrent and remind businesses that the matter is serious and that there are serious consequences. I welcome the £20,000 maximum.

Gillian Merron: I feel inspired and so perhaps can now assist the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness. The reference to different areas allows for regional variation and variation in respect of Wales, as different cases could relate to different sorts of sunbed, for example those for sale or hire. I hope that that is helpful to him.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11

Regulations: control by Parliament or National Assembly for Wales

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Julie Morgan: All regulations under clause 4 need to be laid in draft and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales. They are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Regulations under clauses 5 and 6 are subject to affirmative resolution procedures where they create offences. In all other circumstances it is negative resolution.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 12 to 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill to the House.

Julie Morgan: I thank everyone for todays productive discussions. We have covered some important points. This legislation is important and, as many have said, long overdue. I hope that we will have the support of all parties to make it law.

Mark Simmonds: Once again, I congratulate the hon. Member for Cardiff, North on her excellent piloting of the Bill through Committee and the Minster on the thorough way she has answered the queries and questions raised today. I will make one final point. The Minister is aware, because I have talked to her privately, of my nervousness about the anticipated cost of the Bill for local authorities, which is detailed in the impact assessment with a total of £88,000 for all local authorities in England and Wales. There needs careful monitoring to ensure that that assessed cost is accurate. I hope that the officials in the Department will look closely at that, and if it is much greater that anticipated it needs to be brought back before some part of Parliament to ensure that it can be discussed properly.

Peter Bottomley: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Cardiff, North on successfully bringing the Bill through Committee. I also thank the Minister and, through her, her officials. It would be useful if most colleges had the chance to read the impact assessment as though it was an economic study, and they would learn a great deal on the health advantages as well.

Bruce George: It has been a delight to serve on this Committee. It has been swift and consensual. My only request to the Opposition is that they scour the programmes of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the Inter-Parliamentary Union and all other inter-parliamentary assemblies to ensure that their Members who may seek to be obstreperous are gainfully employed during the further stages of the Bill. If the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness needs advice on names, I am more than prepared to offer a few to him. Apart from that, this has been a good experience. We have done good work and I congratulate all those who have been involved in this endeavour so far.

Betty Williams: May I too congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North? I have nothing to add. I came here having read the Bill. I know how diligent she has been in preparing the Bill with the assistance of my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East. I congratulate her on getting the Bill so far, and I hope and pray that the whole House will support it without delay.

Gillian Merron: It has been a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr. Betts, and with colleagues on all sides. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North. In preparation for today, I suggested that she regard herself as the Minister for the Bill. I think she has acquitted that role beautifully. [Hon. Members: Hear! Hear!] I am full of admiration, particularly for her explanation of parliamentary procedure. I have learned something myself. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East, who has allowed us to get to this point. I thank all Committee members and all other hon. Members who have supported the Bill.
It would be appropriate to write to the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness with regard to the figure and I am happy to do so. I will outline for him some of the assumptions and give some background. I assure him that we will continue to work with LACORS to monitor the cost. We have worked closely with it to date.
I am delighted that we have successfully concluded todays proceedings and I hope that we will see the Sunbeds (Regulation) Bill become law.

Julie Morgan: Briefly, on the point raised by the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness on costs, we have specific costings from LACORS, which is supporting the Bill and is part of the Local Government Association. Those are based on the number of estimated visits. A lot of that work is taking place. Scotland did not put any additional costs in for the work relating to its legislation and Northern Ireland, which is consulting at the moment, has not put any money in. I think that a lot of this work is embedded.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly to be reported, without amendment.

Committee rose.